2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 8

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Time

Introductions by Members

Oral Questions

Health care funding

J. MacPhail

Transit dispute in lower mainland

J. Kwan

Sumas power facility

B. Penner

Throne Speech Debate

J. Kwan

R. Masi

B. Belsey

Hon. S. Hawkins

B. Penner

Hon. G. Hogg

Hon. L. Stephens

Hon. M. de Jong

Hon. R. Coleman

Greater Vancouver Transit Services

Settlement Act (Bill 13). Hon. G. Bruce

Introduction and first reading

Private Members' Statements

For whom the bell cries. I. Chong

H. Bloy

Design-build. J. Les

K. Stewart

Vancouver agreement. L. Mayencourt

Hon. G. Abbott

The Victoria Symphony Splash. J. Bray

S. Orr

Greater Vancouver Transit Services

Settlement Act (Bill 13)

Second reading

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Bruce

Tabling Documents

Document regarding recommendations made

by mediator Vincent Ready for settlement of transit dispute in lower

mainland

Greater Vancouver Transit Services

Settlement Act (Bill 13). Hon. G. Bruce

Committee stage

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

Introductions by Members

Greater Vancouver Transit Services

Settlement Act (Bill 13). Hon. G. Bruce

Committee stage continued

J. MacPhail

Third reading

Royal assent to bills

Greater Vancouver Transit Services

Settlement Act (Bill 13).

[ Page 181 ]

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2001

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C.

Clark: Today in the members' gallery we have some very special guests from

Pakistan, who I had the pleasure of meeting with this afternoon. His Excellency

Tariq Altaf is the High Commissioner for Pakistan to Canada, and he is

accompanied by Riasat Ali Khan, who is a very active member of the Pakistani

community in British Columbia. Please join me in giving both of them a very warm

welcome.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House my counterpart

from Alberta, the Hon. Murray Smith, Minister of Energy in Alberta, and his fine

wife, Barb. They're here to watch question period, and we welcome them to British

Columbia and Victoria.

[1405]

MacPhail: I'm pleased today to welcome a group of people who care deeply

about public transit in the lower mainland: Len Ruel, Jim Sinclair, Joe Elworthy,

Don MacLeod and Geoff Meggs. They are here today to watch, with great interest,

today's business. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MacPhail: The Premier has a lot on his plate today as he begins to chair the

annual Premiers' conference. He has the issues of health care, global warming,

transit. Today we see that the Premier has joined Premier Mike Harris of Ontario

in attacking the federal government and demanding increased health care

spending. At the same time, he's telling the people of British Columbia that

health care can expect no new provincial money under his regime.

To the

Premier. After saddling our province yesterday or the day before with the

second-biggest deficit in history because of high income and corporate tax cuts,

why does he expect the federal government to now bail him out?

Hon. G.

Campbell: What our government has been doing since we were elected by the

people of British Columbia is repairing the damage that that member's government

did throughout the last…. What our government has been doing since we were

elected is turning British Columbia's economy around after that member's

government drove it to one of the worst economies in our country, so that we get

private sector investment, we have jobs, we have opportunity, we have hope, and

we have the resources we need to provide health care for patients across this

province. That's what our goals are.

MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, the public wants a leader they can trust and

that….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: And I think….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members.

MacPhail: I would think that today British Columbians are questioning very

seriously whether they can trust this Premier. I should remind the House that it

was this Premier who said, when the federal government in 1995…. When he was

well prepared to assume the mantle of office, it was this Premier who said, when

the federal government first cut health care spending, that the cuts didn't go

far enough. The Premier has been nothing if not resolute in his misleading of

the public.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member.

MacPhail: The spending priority for his government…

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member. Order, please.

MacPhail: …is high income and corporate tax cuts….

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. Please temper your remarks with

parliamentary language. The word "misleading" is not acceptable.

Please, I urge you now to put your question.

MacPhail: The Premier has been nothing if not resolute. The spending

priority for his government is high income and corporate income tax cuts, not

our health care system.

To the

Premier: why have you abdicated your responsibility to protect and adequately

fund our health care system by denying it any more funds unless your risky,

reckless economic agenda prevails? Why is it that the people of British Columbia

are now dependent on the goodwill of the federal government for their health

care?

Hon. G.

Campbell: There is one thing there is no question about whatsoever. British

Columbians don't respect, appreciate or trust that member, that member's party,

that member's government, which took our economy from the best economy in the

country to the worst and which presided over the deterioration of our health

care system, so patients haven't got the care they

[ Page 182 ]

need and so we don't have the support for nurses they need. That's why this

government has allocated an additional $1.1 billion for health services, so

patients do get the care they need.

[1410]

Mr.

Speaker: With a further supplemental question, the Leader of the Opposition.

MacPhail: Premier Campbell can take no credit for that whatsoever. The

Premier can take no credit for that. He merely did what the government of the

day did when handing him the largest surplus in history that he then turned into

the second-largest deficit overnight, by catering to their corporate backers.

There is one word that best describes the actions of that Premier, and that's

"hypocritical." He tells British Columbians with religious zeal that

high income and corporate tax cuts will pay for themselves as we speak and then

goes to the feds demanding more money.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

MacPhail: This Premier….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: I urge the member to now put her question, please.

MacPhail: This Premier now allies himself with the two Premiers who put

their public health care systems at risk because of their slash-and-cut agendas.

To the

Premier: given what the federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said

recently about the sincerity of the Premier's bargaining position, why have you

substantially weakened B.C.'s bargaining power by pleading poverty to the

federal government, when you've cut billions — billions — in taxes for

corporations and the richest few?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Beyond all the rhetoric that the member opposite brings forward, I

think we have to remember what we're trying to do here.

MacPhail: Just answer the question.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. G.

Campbell: What we want to make sure happens is that patients in this country

— regardless of whether they live in British Columbia or Ontario or New

Brunswick — get the care they need where they live and when they need it. What

we have been very clear about is that there are two sides to this equation. One

is the support of the partners of the Canada Health Act: the federal government

and the provincial governments. The other is for the provinces to work together

to try and control costs so that people do have a health care system that's

sustainable.

Clearly,

what happened under the previous government is that we watched in British

Columbia as their mismanagement, their incompetence and their insatiable quest

to take care of their friends clearly left patients out. We're bringing patients

back into the equation. We're going to bring all of the Canadian partners

together so that we have a sustainable health care system for everybody.

TRANSIT DISPUTE IN LOWER MAINLAND

J. Kwan:

As everyone knows, the Premier's friends on the TransLink board are making a

mess of the transit system. That's despite the fact that the former TransLink

CEO, the current deputy minister to the Premier, Ken Dobell, says there isn't a

transit system in Canada that wouldn't kill for that revenue base. Students,

seniors, businesses and community groups are demanding that there be a long-term

solution to the transit crisis — a crisis that's been brought on by Ken Dobell

setting up a transit system with the highest administration costs in the

country. Over 40 cents on every dollar goes to administration.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. member, would you please put your

question now.

J. Kwan:

This week's Premiers' conference is an opportunity for the province to

communicate a clear position to the federal government, seeking cooperation to

help fund transit. To the Premier: does he have a plan to take to the Premiers'

conference seeking support from the federal government to help fix the lower

mainland transit system that's been broken because of Ken Dobell's incompetence?

[1415]

Hon. G.

Campbell: You know, I appreciate the fact that members opposite may not

agree with the policies that the government enunciates or that we decide on. But

you know what I don't agree with? I don't agree when the member opposite

stands up and says that it was Mr. Dobell or any other public servant who made

these decisions. These decisions were made by elected officials. These decisions

were made by the former government. Will we go and ask the federal government to

contribute to solving transportation problems across British Columbia? You bet

your life we will. And will we ask top-notch public servants to serve in the

province of British Columbia? You bet your life we will.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplemental

question.

J. Kwan:

It is the incompetence of the TransLink board, George Puil — your friend —

and his friends that did not and cannot come to settle the transit strike.

It was their administration that brought in the highest…

[ Page 183 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…and most expensive administration of transit in the history of Canada.

The incompetence has affected thousands of commuters, small businesses, people

in the lower mainland, air quality in our community.

discovered yesterday that this government is also cutting programs that

encourage the green economy, which ensures that we have protection against global

warming. Given this government's emerging anti-environmental agenda, can the

Premier assure British Columbians that he won't jump on the Ralph Klein

bandwagon to fight and kill the Kyoto agreement?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The Premier has the floor.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I think it's important for the members opposite to remember this:

the B.C. Liberal opposition voted against the GVTA agreement. It was imposed by

the NDP.

The member asks: are we going to try and clean up the transit mess that

was left by the NDP government? Yes, we are going to clean up the transit mess. The member

opposite asks: are we going to take care of the environment? Yes, we are going

to seek intervener status on Sumas 2. Yes, we are going to provide additional

benefits to those who buy low-emission vehicles. Yes, we are going to base our

environmental policy on sound science. And yes, we are going to watch as our

environment improves in the province of British Columbia.

SUMAS POWER FACILITY

Penner: Tens and tens of thousands of Fraser Valley residents are concerned

about the serious threat that the proposed Sumas Energy 2 power plant poses to

human health and the environment. Early last year the previous NDP government

repeatedly refused to seek intervener status in Washington State to fight this

threat to Fraser Valley air quality.

During the

election campaign B.C. Liberals promised to seek intervener status if elected

on May 16. On June 29, within hours of SE2 submitting a revised application to

Washington State, the Premier and the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection

wrote a letter seeking intervener status for British Columbia. Can the Minister

of Water, Land and Air Protection now provide the Legislature with an update on

the status of our request for intervener status?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: We did promise to seek intervener status during the election. The

reason for that was the concern about pollution and health issues in the Fraser

Valley and lower mainland. We delivered on that promise a few weeks ago when we

applied for intervener status.

[1420]

I am very

pleased to tell you today that I've heard from the American legal counsel that

we have received approval for our intervener status. This status is going to

give us an opportunity to prevent a major polluter from being located in this

airshed that so many people in British Columbia depend on, and we are going to

do everything we can to make sure we have that outcome.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: Since the previous government did not apply for intervener status,

this government did, as part of our commitment to cleaner air and to improving

the environment. I want to thank the MLAs from the Fraser Valley and all of the

people from the Fraser Valley who worked so hard to bring this issue forward.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Kwan: I rise today to reply to the throne speech. It gives me great honour

to be standing here in the House to represent the people of Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant.

I'll pause for a minute for the other members in the House with

business elsewhere to exit.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, for just a moment. Could the other members departing

please do so quietly. Thank you very much.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Please continue, member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I'm wondering who has the floor.

[ Page 184 ]

Mr.

Speaker: A point of order?

J. Kwan:

Yes. I'd be curious to know just who has the floor.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor. Please

continue.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, hon. Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise today to respond

to the throne speech. I would first like to thank the people of

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for having re-elected me in this election.

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is a community of pride, an activist community. We

are a very diverse community. We are a community that has over 78 ethnicities,

and it is one of the most diverse communities in all of Canada. We're a

community that is proud. We're a strong community, but we're also a community

that faces many, many challenges.

Before I

talk further about that, I'd like to thank the people who worked on my

campaign: my campaign manager, Fred Wilson, and the campaign team, who really

poured their heart and soul into the campaign because they believe in the issues

of social justice. That is the backbone of what Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is

and what we stand for.

When I

think about Mount Pleasant, I do look at the beauty of it — absolutely. We

have a strong small business community. We have a strong community with

activists in the downtown east side around Commercial Drive, around the Main

Street corridor, and I welcome a new part of the community into

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant known as the Cedar Cottage area.

The people

in Mount Pleasant had a strong history of activism long before I even existed or

came to this country. They fight for what they believe in, and they never let go

of that goal. With those kinds of initiatives over the last number of years, and

especially over the last ten years, there were many gains in Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant.

We see the

development of the Four Corners Community Savings, serving people in the

community who otherwise don't have access to banking services that we all take

for granted. We see social housing better developed in the riding, providing

safe, secure affordable housing to the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant:

seniors, families, youth, people with disabilities and so on. We see a thriving

community in the small business areas: in the Chinatown area, in the Commercial

Drive area, around the Main Street corridor, around the Broadway corridor. Those

are the small communities and local businesses that support the riding of

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

[1425]

One of the

issues that I and my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings had been trying to put

forward as an emergency debate sometime earlier was around the transit services.

The residents in my riding depend on transit services. We are a strong

community, but we are also one of the lowest-income communities in all of

Canada. The average income in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is about $16,000 a

year, and people depend on transit services, which have not been available to

them for 123 days.

We've been

calling on the government to take action in this regard, to make sure that

TransLink is held accountable and that they take on their responsibility ensuring that transit services are provided in the lower mainland.

Unfortunately, to date no action has been taken. TransLink continues to refuse

to accept its responsibility. They could have settled

this back on June 14, I believe, when the Vince Ready report was tabled with

recommendations to settle the TransLink dispute. The members need to

understand that when our government, the NDP government, had responsibility for

transit services in Victoria, those disputes were settled. They were settled

within two days. In the lower mainland we brought in a mediator to try to

settle the dispute. The report came out after the election. It was given to the

minister right after the election, and to date there's been no resolution.

It has hurt

the people in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I have seniors coming into the office

with swollen feet because they've had to walk for 45 minutes to an hour to get

to the office, because there's no transit services. I've personally driven

constituents to doctors appointments because they cannot access transit

services. We have single moms coming into the office because they've lost their

jobs because there's no transit services, and this government has taken no

action in that regard.

We looked

to the throne speech to see whether or not there would be any direction there,

and there was nothing there. The throne speech came with a lot of fanfare around

tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest people in British Columbia, people who have

the highest income with the greatest benefits. I look at the people in

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. The average income is $16,000. I looked at what tax

benefit they would get with this throne speech. Well, it is 40 times less than

the constituents and the backers of the Liberal government. I looked to see

whether or not there was any good news for the people of Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant in this throne speech, and it worries me greatly when I think about the

tax cuts. They don't benefit, by and large, the people in Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant.

I think

about housing. The most critical need in the Mount Pleasant area is affordable,

secure, safe housing. I looked to see whether or not the throne speech had any

mention of providing and ensuring that British Columbia continues to be the most

forward-thinking, progressive province in Canada in ensuring that there is a

safe, comprehensive, affordable housing program. I don't see any of that. I

don't see whether or not this government will commit to the 1,800 units of

affordable housing that were announced prior to the election. Out of that 1,800

there are still 600 units of housing yet to be developed and committed to.

Whether or not this government will continue to make those commitments….

[ Page 185 ]

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Yes, the NDP stood strong on the record of affordable housing. There is no

question about it. In fact, B.C. Housing received a national award recognized by

every other person across the country recognizing the record of British Columbia

in affordable housing.

People look

to this government to see whether or not housing is their priority. I'm not

talking about high-priced condos; I'm not talking about privatized housing. I'm

talking about cooperatives and affordable housing for the lowest-income people.

I'm talking about single moms, seniors and families who need those kinds of

affordable housing.

We are

proud of the record that the NDP government provided, and we'll wait and see

whether or not the Liberals will stand on the record of ensuring that affordable

housing is provided — provided for the children who are in need of housing.

Surely all of the very many ministers that are now responsible for childhood

development must acknowledge that affordable housing is the backbone of

stability, to ensure that children thrive in a safe environment.

[1430]

I will wait

to see whether or not the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development will

stand up to her government, to her Premier, to advocate and ensure — not just

advocate but ensure — that housing is developed for the children in this

province.

I think

about Vancouver–Mount Pleasant in terms of the critical need for employment

training initiatives. We are a community with people who are very much

underemployed and unemployed. Employment programs are critical in terms of

supporting them in their own personal development by offering them choices to

enter the labour market, the workforce, and whether or not this government will

come up with initiatives to make sure that those needs are met….

Actually,

we looked at the budget that was just introduced, and in fact, in the budget

there is a $7.5 million reduction in employment training initiatives targeted

towards young people. Given that that is the case, I worry very much — not

just for my riding but for the rest of the province in terms of young people

who might not have had those choices and opportunities as they were growing up

— whether or not now, at this juncture, they would have access to employment

training initiatives that would be critical to them.

I looked at

the throne speech. There was no indication there whether or not this government

will come forward. I have a lot of concerns that they won't. We have already

seen that they have made cuts to the budget in and of itself, but whether or not

there are other initiatives down the road, we'll wait to see that.

I also

looked in the throne speech with eagerness for initiatives and policies that

would address women's issues. You know what, Mr. Speaker? It's sad to say that I

did not see any indication in the policy direction that would address women's

needs. Women have told me and my colleague from Vancouver–Hastings that they

have to have the right to choose on the question around reproductive choice. It

is their right to make sure that they have that choice. That is nobody else's

choice to make for them. Whether or not this government will actually move

forward to ensure that choice is protected for women, there is no policy

decision or direction in the throne speech that addresses that.

I looked at

the issues around women's employment initiatives, once again, and around child

care initiatives that are critical to women in our communities. We looked at the

throne speech. There was nothing there that addresses those issues. We looked at

the budget, and the budget talked about actually cutting child care.

The

Minister of State for Women's Equality actually talked about how child care is

too expensive. This government has rejected offhandedly a universal child care system that even the board of trade says

is a good economic approach and is a good social approach. They say that they need to consult with British

Columbians. Well, consultations have already taken place. Women have spoken loud

and clear in support of a universal child care program. Even their friends from

the board of trade support a universal child care program. Unfortunately, the

first thing that this government does is eliminate $16.9 million from a child

care program and not move forward on a universal child care program, and I think

that's most unfortunate.

When I

think about poverty issues, the community in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is

struggling hard for their day-to-day survival. It is actually an inspiration when

I look and see the many, many struggles in their lives and how they even manage

to survive on a day-by-day basis. When we look at the throne speech to see what

actions and initiatives are there to support people who are living in poverty

and who are struggling every day to survive — for themselves, for their

children and for their families — I see nothing there.

I see big

tax cuts for the wealthiest, the people who don't need government assistance.

Really, the people who don't need government assistance…. Well, they get all

of the benefits. They have a huge tax break given to them. Then on budget day we

see big corporations, multimillion-dollar corporations, getting even a bigger

break. Then I look at the little people, the people who make $16,000 or less,

the average income of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I look and see what they have

got to benefit them. Well, the tax break will be less than $20 a month. That's

what they've got, and the wealthiest will get 40 times that. Somehow this

government thinks that there's something to celebrate.

[1435]

When I

think about issues around multiculturalism, I think of the diversity of our

province. In Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, as I mentioned earlier, we're one of

the most diverse communities in all of Canada — 78 ethnicities. We're not only

diverse in the colour of our skin, but we're also diverse by way of sexual

orientation. We're also diverse in terms of income levels. We are very diverse

in every aspect of the word. When I look to the throne speech, there is

nothing

[ Page 186 ]

mentioned about celebrating and supporting multiculturalism in British

Columbia, the diversity of British Columbia. In fact, days after the election

the Attorney General immediately moved to step aside from supporting same-sex

couples in their fight to have the right for recognition in marriage.

I'm

actually getting married myself in August of this year. In fact, on August 12 I

will be getting married to a wonderful person that I have come to meet, and he

is my minister of romance. He is the person that I'll answer to on issues around

love and romantic affairs. I am very delighted about that. But you know, it

saddens me, because I have friends and I know a lot of people who are also

seeking the same path that I have chosen. It should be a choice if you want to

recognize your union by way of sanctifying it through a marriage procedure,

legally through that procedure, or simply have a relationship in partnership

without that process. It ought to be a choice.

As part

of a heterosexual couple, I have that choice. We have that choice. But you know

what? Same-sex couples don't have that choice. They ought to be given that

choice. The NDP government actually moved forward and tried to advance and

support individual choices in that regard. The first thing this government did

was step back and say: "No, I'm sorry, same-sex couples. If you want to

have your marriage recognized legally, we will not support you. We will simply

step back." You know, hon. Speaker, that's a regression in time. In the new

era of choices and opportunities those choices ought to be made by all people,

no matter who they are, where they come from or what their sexual orientation

may be.

Hon.

Speaker, we think about other issues impacting women. I think about the pay

equity legislation. One of the last acts, yes, of our government under the NDP

administration was to bring forward legislation on pay equity. Women deserve to

be paid at the same level for work of equal value. I looked to the throne speech to see whether or not they'll stand

up and support women in the pay equity legislation, and I thought that it was most unfortunate. What the government

has chosen to do, instead of moving forward with that piece of legislation, is

simply say: "Hey, we'll create a panel. We'll review it. We'll take a look

at it." You know what? You can see that it's not a priority, because

there's no time line whatsoever. The panel can probably go on and on. There's no

intention whatsoever, no signal to the women who fought all of their lives to

make sure that pay equity is on the agenda, to make sure that it is brought

forward and that once it has been brought forward, it continues to move forward.

There's

nothing from this government on supporting pay equity legislation and making

sure that it comes to fruition. You know what? That's a loss to women, yes, and

it's a loss to the B.C. economy. This government says it wants to make sure that

there's a strong economy. Well, women are a big part of it. They're not just a

lobby group that is out there. They are 52 percent of our population, and they

contribute significantly to the B.C. economy. The pay equity legislation is a

significant component of that.

When I look

at the throne speech, I look to see what the priorities of this government are.

Lo and behold, the priority of this government is to support the oil and gas

industry — offshore drilling. They say immediately that they would set up a

scientific panel and that this panel will do their work within six months and

figure out whether or not offshore drilling would be a good thing or a bad thing

for British Columbia. I don't know how, within six months, this government can

fast-track that kind of work and come to a determination when they cannot make

that determination for pay equity, when everybody has spoken on the issue around

pay equity and it is clear that it is a good thing for British Columbians.

[1440]

But for oil

and gas offshore drilling they already know where they want to go. They're

going to create this so-called panel and make some sort of decision, but the

fact of the matter is that the decision has already been made. There's no doubt

about it. And this is irrespective of what's going to happen to our environment.

They say

they care very much about the environment, but what do they do in their throne

speech? There was no mention of the environment, with the exception of…. When we

talk about deregulation in the budget and when we talk

about mining explorations and offshore drilling and the like — everything that would be detrimental

to the environment — there is nothing in terms of talking about protecting the

environment. There is nothing that talks about ensuring that our air quality is

improved or that it supports the Kyoto protocol. I'm not sure if the Premier

actually knows what that is.

We're not

moving in the direction that the world trend, the global trend, is moving

towards with respect to environmental and global warming issues — with the

exception, of course, of Ralph Klein, Mike Harris and George Bush. Perhaps the

Premier is really interested in moving in the same direction as Mike Harris. We

have never seen that kind of detriment imposed in the last ten

years to our environment in British Columbia. We'll see whether or not this

government will move in that direction. My suspicion is that they will.

I have lots

of concerns around the environment. As I mentioned, I am getting married, and

hopefully one day I'll be lucky enough to be blessed with children also. I hope

that our environment will still be there for that generation and that the air

quality will still be protected, but I have no assurances of that from the

throne speech to date.

think about a critical issue to our community once again, the history of

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the issues around human rights, rights that

protect working women and working men, low-income people. We talk about

same-sex couples and all of those protections. I looked to the throne speech

to see what direction this government might take with respect to advocating and

moving

[ Page 187 ]

forward on human rights, and there was nothing there. There was nothing in

the throne speech. My constituents ask me, and they worry about some of the

advances that we have made and whether or not the clock will turn back.

You know

what? All I can say to them is that I fear that it will. I fear that the clock

will turn back. We will have to be ever vigilant to watch this government and

hold them accountable on issues that are important to British Columbians.

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant we have a lot of people who have made a lot of

contributions to our community. In the last while — in fact, less than a month

ago — I lost a very good friend of mine, John Cheetham. He was a champion in

the non-profit sector. For anyone who was involved with HIV/AIDS issues, with

advancing human rights for people who are not recognized in our community or

with advancing concerns for the poorest of the poor and the most marginalized

people, John was there.

John was

somebody who was uncommon in many ways — with many contradictions, really. He

was a businessman, an accountant. He was the only accountant I knew who had blue

hair — sometimes orange and other times yellow. He was the only business

person I knew that I would honestly call…. He fundamentally believed in the

principles not just from an economic point of view but also from a social point

of view. He had a business called Ethisys.

Just weeks

before he died, he won an award from VanCity Credit Union that recognized

ethical businesses and individuals. That was the Ethics in Action Award. John

contributed much to our community, and it is a great sadness and loss to our

community and to his family members that John died suddenly.

[1445]

Before he

died, though, he donated time to create the world's first cost-benefit analysis

on harm reduction. This cost many thousands of dollars in hours — in time —

and they donated it to the Portland Hotel Society. He was very generous and a

very, very good friend of mine and our community. In fact, just last week in

the West Ender he was recognized as the community's hero. I will miss

John greatly, and I will think of him in every struggle against the spread of

HIV/AIDS in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the broader community, to make sure

that the most marginalized people are not set aside and cast aside and that

businesses understand the issues and stand up and be ethical around their

principles in support of all communities. I will think of John when we fight

that fight.

I know that

John is actually watching us. I have no doubt that he's watching me, wishing me

well and, hopefully, providing me with the guidance I will need to make sure

that we move in the right direction in this regard.

As I

mentioned, in the downtown east side community we have many, many challenges.

There's no doubt about it. It is a strong community with activists, but we still

have many challenges. One of the most critical challenges we have is, of course,

the substance-misuse challenge we're faced with. For a couple of years prior to

the election we have been working with the three levels of government — the

city of Vancouver, the provincial and federal governments — on the Vancouver

agreement. We have made some great strides in advancing that agreement.

Under the

Vancouver agreement, the provincial government actually committed to 600 units of

affordable housing to make sure that people who need housing, who live in

substandard housing are being provided for. We have provided additional support

for treatment centres and expanded treatment services in the community — not

just in the downtown east side community but, really, throughout the

Vancouver-Richmond region as well.

We have

seen a range of detox services, sobering services, stabilizing services,

outreach and methadone therapy supports being committed to and financed. Whether

or not this government will continue on with that direction and place the

priority that it needs to place in the downtown east side community is a

question that remains to be answered.

We've also

seen the creation of indoor health connection programs to provide health and

substance-misuse referral services, life skills training and social support

programs for street-involved drug and alcohol users. We've also seen the

redevelopment and redeployment of police officers to increase their contact and

visibility in the community. Those are some of the initiatives that the three

levels of government have committed to.

We have

also stepped up the expansion of the street program by ensuring that employment

opportunities are provided to the people in the downtown east side, whether they

be picking up drug paraphernalia in the neighbourhood, graffiti cleanup

initiatives or even the first native artist co-op that promotes the talents of

the downtown east side, which often gets overlooked, the people who have many,

many skills but are not showcased in the way they need to be for those

initiatives to be supported by government. Those were some of things we have

done under the Vancouver agreement. Whether or not this government will continue

to move forward in the four-pillar, comprehensive approach to substance misuse

remains to be seen.

I sincerely

hope that the government will. It is needed, and it's been agreed to by

all three levels of government. We should not turn back the clock. People do not

need to die in the downtown east side. Those lives could be saved. The spread of

diseases could be prevented if we move forward on the four-pillar approach to

substance misuse and if we are progressive in those decisions.

I've been

asked time and again by the people in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant whether or not

the support and priority that the NDP had placed on the downtown east side

community will continue. I do not know the answer to that. I have written a

letter to the minister, and I'm awaiting his response. These are some of the

questions that the community wants to

[ Page 188 ]

know: whether or not their government, this government, will honour the

financial commitments made to date; whether or not the Liberal government will

continue to make the four-pillar comprehensive approach to substance misuse a

priority, as the city and federal governments have done. Will the government

honour the 600 units of affordable housing committed to under the Vancouver

agreement? Will the Liberal government continue to make the commitments, under

the western economic partnership agreement with the federal government, on the

Vancouver agreement? And will this government commit to the necessary resources

to implement the various different initiatives? I look forward to the answers.

[1450]

I look to

the throne speech to see whether or not there are any of these pressing issues

that are important and critical to Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I don't see

anything there. The only thing, really, that the entire throne speech focuses on is around big tax cuts to people who are the wealthiest in the

province, but

a lot of people who are the poorest happen to live in my riding — I know

that from my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings — and depend on a lot of the

services that government would provide. Was there any good news for them in the

throne speech? Unfortunately, there wasn't.

In my

community we have a strong community of aboriginal people, and they fear that the

referendum process would divide the community, would drive the

aboriginal people into even more poverty, into even more regressive developments

for them. We know all of the stats within the aboriginal community. They have

the highest mortality rate. They have the highest rate of people being in

conflict with the law. They have the highest high school dropout rate. They have

the highest suicide rate, and the list goes on and on.

You know,

this government says that it wants to see economic activity and stability. Well

then, Mr. Speaker, drop the referendum approach. Restore stability in the

aboriginal community and for all of British Columbia and make sure that there

can be forward-thinking and progressive movements for the aboriginal community

and all people of British Columbia.

I thank you

for the opportunity to speak and respond to the throne speech today, and I look

forward to working with the members. I hope the members will remember that the

agenda is not just the corporate agenda, that there is a broader British

Columbia other than the people who donated to their campaign.

R. Masi:

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Speaker on his

election to the chair, and I expect the evenhandedness and efficient operation

that we've come to expect. I'm sure that he will deliver. I'm very much looking

forward to it.

Also, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on her wedding day, August 12. That

happens to be my birthday, so we can both celebrate a great day.

I'm

honoured to rise today to participate in this throne speech and economic review

of the second session of the thirty-seventh parliament. But before I begin, I

would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of my constituency,

Delta North, for their confidence and support in re-electing me as their MLA. I

want to thank them for their overwhelming endorsement of this government's

platform for change. It's a vision of a new era for British Columbia. It has

been a long time since a government took up the challenge laid down by the

people of this province with such a visionary and bold throne speech and an

economic review.

This throne

speech sets out a clear direction for our province. It is an action plan. It

represents a new era for British Columbia as we begin to put B.C. back on track

after a decade of decline and failure on the part of the previous government.

You know, B.C. used to be the province to live in. We were known as a province

where if you worked hard, you could get ahead. We were known as a province where

entrepreneurs and investment capital were welcome, and then in the fall of 1991

that all changed. Our economy went from first to worst over the past ten years.

We were last in economic growth, investment growth, employment growth, and the

average annual take-home pay dropped by over $1,700.

This dismal

record of shame is not the fault of the hard-working people of British Columbia.

Responsibility for this dismal record of incompetence and lost opportunity lies

squarely with the NDP. The people of British Columbia spoke loudly and clearly

on May 16 of this year. They said that this must stop. They said that they weren't

going to take it anymore. They said that it was time for a new era in British

Columbia. This government has listened to the people, and the Speech from the

Throne reflects that.

[1455]

It spells

out very clearly our government's solemn commitment to fulfil its contract with

the people of British Columbia. The future legislation will set out the

foundation for a new era of hope, prosperity and accountability. In the last

election the Premier and all of us on the government side made a genuine

commitment to the people of British Columbia that we would maintain the current

funding levels for both health care and education in this province.

Additionally, we committed to increase those funding levels as the economy grew,

and this Speech from the Throne reaffirms these commitments.

It should

come as no surprise to anyone in this Legislature, nor will it come as any great

surprise to British Columbians, that our health care system is in trouble. These

troubles didn't crop up overnight. In fact, many of the problems plaguing our

health care system were identified back in 1991 by the Seaton Royal Commission

on Health Care and Costs.

Despite the

warnings sounded back in 1991, the previous government chose to ignore them. Not

only that, they cut back spending on health care, the hiring and training of

doctors, nurses, licensed practical nurses and hospital beds. With fewer beds,

fewer

[ Page 189 ]

nurses and fewer doctors as a result of NDP mismanagement, is it any wonder

that surgical waiting lists ballooned out of control over the past five years,

with general surgery wait-lists up 27 percent, neurosurgery up 79 percent, and

on and on?

This is why

I was pleased to see the decisive action taken by our government to address

these critical shortages right at their root cause. We have committed to

enhancing training programs for health care aides and licensed practical nurses.

We will increase the support to upgrade the training for existing health care

providers and enhance our efforts to help more foreign-trained nurses and non-practising

nurses get the education and training they need.

Working

with British Columbians, we will deliver on our commitment to open, build and

operate an additional 5,000 intermediate and long term care beds by 2006. Over

the course of this term of office we will establish provincial health standards,

provide a $5 million rural travel assistance program, increase residency

positions, enhance training for ambulance attendants and bolster our commitment

to telehealth and locum support.

These

commitments lay the groundwork for getting our health care system back on track,

reflecting our government's priority to deliver, as outlined in the Speech from

the Throne, high-quality public health care services that meet all patients'

needs where they live and when they need them.

Similarly,

our government is committed to delivering a top-notch education system for

students of all ages. As one who spent much of my adult life as an educator, I

can't begin to tell you how pleased I was to see this commitment on the part of

the government. For too long our educational system has been subjected to the

NDP's policy of benign neglect and appeasement rather than forthright

leadership.

Our

students have been held hostage to labour unrest, with the result that over four

million student-days were lost during the previous government's reign of error.

Those four million days can never be replaced, and it's our children who suffer.

That must stop. As stated in the throne speech, no child's right to an education

should be denied because of a school strike or lockout.

It's why we

will introduce legislation in this session to restore education as an essential

service, but that's not all. Successful education starts at the local level. Our

government knows that school boards need greater autonomy, flexibility and

accountability if they are to deliver the quality education that parents and

students demand and expect.

It means

providing school boards with rolling three-year funding envelopes so that they

have greater certainty when planning for their district needs. It means allowing

school boards greater flexibility in how their funds are allocated, and it means

establishing specific goals and outcomes to better measure the success of our

education system.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Parents

want to be more involved in their children's education, and our government

welcomes their involvement. That's why we will introduce legislation in this

session to ensure that parents with children in school will be able to volunteer

in that school, and as well, we will restore funding to parent advisory

committees.

[1500]

Our

government is also following through on its pledge to usher in a new era for

advanced education. We're going to double the number of graduates in computer

science and in electrical and computer engineering over the next five years. We

will establish a leading-edge endowment fund in partnership with the private

sector. Fully funded over the next four years, the endowment fund will create 20

permanent B.C. leadership chairs in environmental, social, technological and

medical research.

As a former

educator, as a parent — and, I might add, as a parent of two sons who are

preparing to enter the teaching profession — I am proud to participate in this

exciting new era for education in our province, a new education that will

provide exciting new opportunities and hope for our children and indeed all

British Columbians.

It should

come as no surprise to all members of this chamber that British Columbians have

become increasingly cynical and pessimistic about politicians and politics. They

feel alienated and that their opinion and vote don't matter anymore. This

frustration tears at the very fabric of our democracy, and I believe that it is

incumbent upon all of us as legislators, working with the people of British

Columbia, to bridge this divide.

Our

government has taken the initiative by lifting the veil of secrecy that hung

over the operations of cabinet, through the televising of monthly meetings of

cabinet for all British Columbians to witness. I am pleased to see that we will

have fixed election dates, a first in Canada, so that the calling of elections

will no longer be done at the political advantage of any Premier.

As a

legislator I am very happy that we will now have the ability to vote freely on

all legislative matters not identified as confidence votes. As well, I was

pleased to note the commitment of this government to bring in a set legislative

calendar and fixed budget dates. At long last this Legislature is being put in a

business-type setting. These reforms are long overdue, and I am proud that it is

our government that recognized their need and took the initiative to bring them

forward.

At some

time over the next couple of years British Columbians will be asked to examine

and assess different models of electing MLAs, including proportional

representation, preferential ballots and our current electoral system, amongst

other options. A citizens' assembly on electoral reform will be set up with a

mandate to examine these issues, and if they make recommendations for changing

our electoral system, those recommendations will be put to the people in a

provincewide referendum.

[ Page 190 ]

I believe

that the people of British Columbia will respond favourably and passionately

when the citizens' assembly on electoral reform is established and commences its

proceedings. At the same time, however, I believe that we need to examine very

carefully the role of individual members of the Legislature. Are there better

ways for us to harness the talents, knowledge, energy and passion that each of

us brings to this job? Do we need to explore other models of legislative

structure, such as in the U.S., where elected representatives at the state and

federal levels sponsor and pass substantive legislation? What about the Scottish

or the British models? Look even at our own roots here in Canada. You know, at

the time of Confederation, Members of Parliament were far more individualistic,

and coalitions ebbed and flowed on the floor of the House of Commons depending

on the issue being debated.

Our

government has made meaningful progress in terms of reforming this Legislative

Assembly and our role in it. The Speech from the Throne confirms this. The

question is: can or should we look at additional ways of further enhancing the

role of MLAs so that we can better represent the interests of our constituents?

At some

point over the next year British Columbians will be asked to give their direct

input into a process which will have a profound impact on the future of our

province. I'm speaking of our government's commitment to hold a provincial

referendum on the principles that will guide the government in its negotiations

on behalf of the people of B.C. with members of our first nations. I know that

the people of this province want to negotiate treaty settlements that are

balanced and honourable and that reflect our values of fairness and equity. What

is clear, however, is that the people of B.C. do not want these negotiations

carried on behind closed doors. Closed-door atmospheres lead to fear and

apprehension.

[1505]

We need a

framework around which negotiations can be conducted with clearly defined

principles. We need certainty and finality to these negotiated treaties such

that every citizen of British Columbia can move forward with confidence into the

future. At the same time, I believe we need to ensure that everybody's rights

are recognized and protected. To be just and equitable, treaty settlements need

to respect and reflect the contribution and role of everyone in the signatory

first nation. That's everyone: both male and female, young and old.

Individual

freedoms, rights and obligations are the cornerstone of any democracy. A treaty

settlement which fails to reflect these core values of democracy is itself

doomed to fail and is not worth the paper it is written on.

There is

another area of public policy which I want to share with the Legislature today.

It's a subject that has at times gripped our nation over the past 40 years, and

that issue is national unity. In 1995 our country came perilously close to

fragmenting. A mere whisker of votes separated those in Quebec who would go

their own way and those who would choose Canada.

While the

issue of Quebec separation has dominated the nation's headlines for the past

four decades, we have heard these same appeals from our own friends and

neighbours from time to time here in western Canada. Even here in B.C. there are

occasionally calls from a few citizens for western separatism. I hope that these

western Canadian calls for separation are isolated incidents, led only by sour

and disgruntled individuals.

Certainly,

these calls are at odds with those I meet and talk with in my riding and around

most of the province. Indeed, we need only think back to last year, when a

television ad touched our nation like no other in recent memory. I'm sure that

all members of this Legislature will recall the ad I'm referring to. It's the

one where a man on stage talks about what makes Canada different from the U.S.

That ad spoke to Canadians deep in our collective souls. The way we reacted to

it clearly demonstrated a profound love of Canada.

While we

aren't known as flag-waving patriots like our friends to the south of us, we are

nonetheless no less proud to be Canadian. Our country is known around the world

as a beacon for tolerance, understanding, opportunity, justice and compassion.

The Canada that citizens of the world seek out includes Quebec and British

Columbia and Prince Edward Island and all the other provinces and territories

that constitute its whole. I believe that we are a better nation because of our

differences and our commonalities.

would be folly to think that the cloak of separatism has been buried. There are

those for whom this debate would suit their own agendas. The way we tackle

separatism head-on is by working with all provinces and the federal government

to shape and build a confederation which reflects our modern realities.

This week

Premier Campbell is hosting the annual Premiers' conference here in Victoria,

affording British Columbia a unique opportunity to reassert its influential role

in Confederation. To be successful at these conferences requires one to

demonstrate leadership, wisdom and courage — not petulance, grandstanding and

crass politics, as was so often evident with the previous administration. That's

why I'm proud to be a member of Premier Campbell's government, for he knows that

our reputation as a province was degraded within the nation over the past five

years.

Premier

Campbell knows that Ottawa and the other provincial governments will be watching

closely to see how our government conducts itself. They will watch to see if we

can be trusted or if we say one thing in a meeting and then turn around and say

something else in the media. I can tell all members of this Legislature that

Premier Campbell is a man of his word and that he will represent British

Columbia with integrity, distinction and honour.

All of us

on the government side understand the importance of British Columbia and our

role in Canada. We will be vigilant in advancing the interests

[ Page 191 ]

of our province, but at the same time, we will be demonstrating the concrete

benefits of being Canadian.

Finally, I

wanted to turn to two issues of prime importance to my own constituency of Delta

North. I am speaking of the preservation of Burns Bog and the construction of

the proposed South Fraser perimeter road.

The

preservation of Burns Bog is an issue that has captured international attention.

Area-wise, the bog, as the locals refer to it, covers some 3,000 hectares —

much, much larger, in fact, than Stanley Park.

[1510]

It is a

unique domed, or raised, bog ecosystem, home to over 150 species of birds and

mammals and countless species of plants and insects. Some of its inhabitants,

such as the southern red-back vole and the Pacific water shrew, are endangered.

And it provides a critical habitat for the region's greater sandhill crane

population. For a number of years now local residents, led by Eliza Olson of the

Burns Bog Conservation Society, have been working and lobbying to save Burns Bog

from development. They have enlisted the support, political and financial, of

the corporation of Delta and the GVRD.

The

province, under the previous NDP government, made a drastic decision that could

have had tragic consequences if successful. It would have brought the PNE —

think of it — to sit right on top of Burns Bog. Fortunately, the good

residents of my constituency and others, working with the then opposition

leader, Gordon Campbell, were able to stop this lunacy before it was too late.

Earlier this year, at long last, the federal government stepped up to the plate

and agreed to allocate funds to help purchase it. So the funding appears to be

in place. Now we need to sit down and negotiate with the owners of the bog. To

date, negotiating with the owners has been an exercise in frustration. However,

I'm confident that we will see a resolution to this issue, one that will see us

acquire and preserve Burns Bog for future generations.

Lastly, Mr.

Speaker, I want to briefly touch on the issue of the South Fraser perimeter road

project. For years it has been recognized that ever-increasing truck traffic

moving goods between the rail terminus in Surrey, Delta Port and Roberts Bank

and the border needed a better transportation corridor. Currently, the bulk of

the truck traffic — and I might add that it's over 2,000 trucks a day —

travels up and down River Road, through my constituency, disrupting what should

be a very quiet residential area.

The

principal stumbling block is funding, of course. At a projected cost of some

$400 million to construct, neither the corporation of Delta nor the province can

afford to build it by themselves. To make this project work, we need the

assistance of the federal government. Until they step forward, it is unlikely

that this project will be completed. We need this project, though, not just for

North Delta but rather for the entire lower mainland. Improving our

transportation infrastructure is critical to our region's and the province's

economic health and competitiveness. We will need a comprehensive and sustained

effort to bring Ottawa to the table, and I am hopeful that this will in fact be

accomplished.

It has been

my honour and my privilege to participate in this throne speech debate. And it

is an honour to have been chosen by my peers in North Delta to represent them

once again in this Legislature.

In closing,

I wanted to bring to the Legislature's attention a statement once made by Rev.

Harry Emerson Fosdick on democracy. He said: "Democracy is based upon the

conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people."

That's what it is: the freedom to encourage every one of us to do our very best.

Belsey: Hon. Speaker, this being my first opportunity to stand in this

hallowed chamber, I want to tell the people of British Columbia — in

particular, the people of the North Coast riding — how honoured and excited I

am to have the opportunity to represent them. At the same time, I would like to

extend my congratulations to you and the rest of my colleagues that sit with me

in this chamber.

The people

of British Columbia sent a very clear message to the past government that they

wanted change, and in the short time that we have been in power, our government

has sent back a very clear message: we have listened, and we're not afraid to

give them the changes they asked for.

[1515]

My riding,

I believe, is the fourth-largest in this beautiful province. It extends from the

pristine Bella Coola Valley in the south to the towering snow-capped mountains

above Stewart in the north. From east to west it includes the two port

communities of Prince Rupert and Port Edward and across Hecate Strait to the

unspoiled and well-preserved Queen Charlotte Islands, Haida Gwaii. This vast

region hosts many different cultures and many different ethnic groups. It is a

vast region supporting many families with its riches. It is home to

approximately 25,000 people, of which approximately 45 percent are first

nations.

This riding

has sent a number of citizens to this chamber, and many have served this

province well. Included in that list of distinguished representatives are the

hon. Duff Pattullo, who served from 1933 to 1941 and actually became Premier of

this great province — I might add that he was a member of the Liberal Party at

the time — and the hon. Bill Murray, who served from 1964 to 1972 and

eventually served as Speaker of the House.

However,

not even the hon. Pattullo or the hon. Murray could have predicted the problems

that northerners face today. Paramount on the minds of so many of those living

in my riding are two very important issues. These issues are Skeena Cellulose

and offshore oil and gas. Both of these topics have huge implications to those

living, and the families living, in my riding. These are in no way the only

issues that concern my riding, but they are the ones that I have the time to

address today.

First, let

me comment on Skeena Cellulose. I was the manager of maintenance and engineering

at Skeena

[ Page 192 ]

Cellulose operations before I was elected to represent the North Coast

riding, so I do have some insight into the operation. Few facts were ever made

public by the previous government, and the newspapers rarely ever supported

Skeena Cellulose. All we ever heard were the negative and often erroneous facts

about Skeena Cellulose and its operations.

Let me

correct or at least point out some of those facts that support the pulp mill in

my riding. Skeena Cellulose has set weekly and monthly pulp production records

this year. That is only possible with cooperation from both the pulp mill

workers and the management team, working together to coordinate labour,

materials and equipment. Skeena Cellulose made a profit last year and met all

its negotiated financial commitments for 2000.

The

financial commitments included the cost of supplies, raw products, maintenance

costs, as well as its taxes and stumpage fee. Approximately $100 million a year

for the last three years has gone back into the various levels of government

from stumpage, personal income tax and sales tax from people that work at Skeena

Cellulose.

Hon.

Speaker, I am often asked: "What would happen if Skeena Cellulose closed

today?" My standard answer, when asked that question, is: how many people

live in your riding? Just today I was asked that very question, and the answer

to mine was: "About 50,000 people live in my riding." Well, I'll tell

you what would happen. What do you think would happen if 10,000 people in your

riding lost their job today? Approximately 20 percent of the people who live in

Prince Rupert, or roughly 2,500 people, are either directly or indirectly

employed at Skeena Cellulose or one of its facilities.

[1520]

The

position Skeena Cellulose finds itself in today is a culmination of a number of

problems. One, of the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been generated

by that company, they've been removed by previous owners who have put little

money back into the facilities. Oversupply of pulp mills and markets have caused

prices in the pulp industry to drop to virtually all-time lows. This could and

will change in time, making the Skeena mill a very attractive asset to some

buyer. But in the interim the question remains: what do we do with Skeena

Cellulose?

I know

Skeena Cellulose has been a very time-consuming issue for Minister Thorpe and

his staff. They continue to spend long hours trying to find a buyer and a

solution to the difficulties the company finds itself in today. I want to thank

each and every one of them for their continued effort.

The second

major issue in my riding is the potential for offshore oil and gas. This holds

enormous potential not only for those living in my riding but indeed for all

British Columbians and in fact all Canadians. It is important that we develop

these reserves, but we must do it in ways that are tied to proper environmental

practices, proper consultation with northerners and a clear understanding of how

revenue will be shared with the people living in that area.

It is not

with reckless abandon that I propose development of these oil-and-gas-bearing

fields — quite the contrary. It must be investigated with sensitivity to both

the people in the north and the environment. But it must be clearly understood

that over the last 15 to 20 years, there have been many studies into the impact

of offshore oil and gas development in and around Hecate Strait.

One of the

most inclusive studies brought together the coastal communities, first nations,

oil companies and the government. They identified 94 issues to be addressed

before the moratorium could be lifted. Every single one of these issues has been

addressed today. They are no longer concerns, either because of the drilling

technology advancements or because they have been addressed by procedures, codes

and requirements for drilling. Yet we still want to study drilling offshore.

Some of the

questions that arose from those studies included the concern of earthquakes. We

currently drill along the west coast of Alaska; we drill off Santa Barbara, off

Los Angeles, right down to the coast of South America. These coastal locations

are joined by the same geological formation. As a matter of fact, every major

drilling plate in the world today has the same general geological formation. Yet

we often hear the concern: what about earthquakes? Why has it been proven safe

in all these other locations, but it's not proven safe off of our coast? High

wind and high wave action. The wind and wave action caused by Atlantic storms in

the North Sea are far more powerful than those Hecate Strait is exposed to.

Oil spills.

Let me share with you some interesting facts from a report prepared by the

people who look at the development of Hibernia. Forty-five percent of the

hydrocarbons entering the marine environment today is attributed to tanker

traffic. It's attributed to those facilities that load and offload oil and to

those vessels that pump their bilge when ballasting. Approximately 10 percent of

all hydrocarbons that make it into the marine environment comes from runoff from

sewers and ditches where oil that leaks from cars gathers and concentrates and

then is carried out into a marine environment.

[1525]

Mother

Nature herself is responsible for approximately 7 percent through natural

seepage from earthquakes. The very first well drilled on the Queen Charlotte

Islands was in an area where oil came to the surface naturally. Fishermen who

crab-fish in Hecate Strait have reported, from time to time, finding crab traps

that they've retrieved that have oil on them. There is a natural seepage of oil.

Identified in this very same report was that 1.8 percent or less was attributed

to offshore oil and exploration. It can be done safely. It is being done safely

around the world.

With the

proper controls in place, with a better understanding of the process and with

revenue-sharing considerations, we can develop what could quite conceivably be

the largest single contributor to debt reduction for British Columbia. Revenue

from gas and oil development could be the largest single contributor to

education and health care budgets, and it would

[ Page 193 ]

become the greatest single contributor to my riding's economy.

Our Finance

minister tabled one of the boldest tax-cutting budgets this province has ever

seen. No government has had the vision, the wisdom or the fortitude to bring in

tax-cutting measures that this government has. My riding wants to be a valued

contributor to turning this province around. We want to help generate the

revenue we need to support the programs that we have in place. My riding is

eager, willing and able to contribute to the revenue needed to move this

province back to being the number one province in Canada.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: It's an honour to rise and respond to the throne speech, Mr.

Speaker, and let me first say congratulations on your appointment. I haven't had

a chance to congratulate you yet.

I want to

say how privileged I feel to be re-elected by the people in the Okanagan for the

riding that I serve. I'm very honoured to be the member for the new riding of

Kelowna-Mission. I was honoured to represent the people of Okanagan West, and I

know they have a great representative in the new MLA that they've elected. There

are many people who helped me in my re-election, and to each and every one of

them I want to say thank you.

Certainly,

I want to acknowledge the staff in my constituency office who have worked

extremely hard for me the last five years and who continue to give the very best

service that they can provide to my constituents. To Del and Meghan I say thank

you, thank you, thank you for all the long hours that you put into the office

and also for all the dedicated community and charity work that you do. You've

really made me proud.

I heard the

Minister of Sustainable Resource Management say that he represented the most

beautiful area in the province, and I challenge him to come to my riding,

because I know he'll have to change his mind. I think everyone knows that the

Okanagan is known worldwide for its beauty.

We are the

heart of free enterprise. We can boast, as well, that we have one of the largest

chambers of commerce in the province. I think it is the largest chamber of

commerce membership. We have a very diverse economy. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, you

know, because you're my colleague on the other side there. We have a very

wonderful tree fruit industry. We have wine-making, fruit packing, processing,

manufacturing, forestry, high-tech, tourism. They're amongst the mainstays in

our area.

[1530]

In Kelowna

we're very fortunate to have an active arts community, a symphony orchestra,

galleries, our sports teams — the Kelowna Rockets hockey team. Incidentally, I

think they beat the Kamloops Blazers for the top spot last year, and I challenge

the member for Kamloops to correct me on that. Also, I'd like to mention our

Okanagan Sun football team, because I know they've done us proud on the national

stage for the last few years, so I commend them.

We also

have over 40 wineries and golf courses in the valley, miles and miles of

beautiful beaches, ski hills that are world-class, and hiking and biking trails

that attract tourists from around the world. So it really is a paradise, and I

would like to invite all the members to come and visit — even the member for

Comox Valley. I'm sure he will be tempted to stay, but at the very least I think

he'll come back to visit many times.

On Tuesday

we heard our Minister of Finance present the Economic and Fiscal Update .

Like many of my constituents, I was very proud and upbeat about the direction he

set us on. B.C. is coming back. After ten years of decline and struggle, I

believe we now have a reason to be optimistic. After ten years of facing

hardship, job losses and declining incomes, we have a reason to hope. After ten

years of going from being number one to last place, I think we all have a reason

to believe in a new era of hope and prosperity for this province.

The mood in

my constituency after the Finance minister's report was upbeat and very

optimistic. The tax announcements are good news for all the enterprising people

in my riding. Good news for the workers, who got the 25 percent income tax

reductions more than a month ago — something we promised and we delivered

immediately after we got sworn in. Good news for the businesses in the logging,

mining and energy sectors, who saw a drop in investment and business over the

last ten years. Good news for the high-tech industry, small businesses and

foreign investors, who are eager to come to B.C. and build their businesses here

too. And good news for all the people buying the cars and trucks they need for

work, business and family use.

I'm proud

of our government's swift, solid action to kick-start our economy. We face many

challenges. After ten years of fiscal mismanagement and incompetence, we must

have and we need a vital, vibrant economy so we can pay for those very, very

important high-quality health and education services that we are responsible for

providing. I believe the measures announced by our Finance minister will set the

stage for significant economic growth around the province.

After the

tax cuts that we announced as soon as we got sworn in, business and consumer

confidence has increased significantly, and that's only been in the last seven

weeks. The new measures and regulatory changes that were announced on Tuesday, I

believe, will increase investment; re-energize our logging, mining and

transportation industries; and positively impact on working families and the job

creation that will begin in this province once again.

Some people

— like perhaps the two members opposite — will say that we shouldn't have

cut taxes, that our measures were too aggressive or that we couldn't afford to

do what we did. But I say to them: we couldn't afford not to do it. We had to

move. If we didn't do something now, we would end up being a have-not province,

something those members across the way were responsible for in the last ten

years, taking our province from number one — from being a

[ Page 194 ]

leader in Canada — to tenth place, something I think British Columbians are

not very proud of and want to move forward on. That's what the majority of

British Columbians want. They voted for change; they voted for positive change.

They voted for a different way of doing things. They voted for fiscal

responsibility, better management and a change of direction from the past ten

years.

In order to

build a healthy economy, we need a competitive tax system and better fiscal

management in this province. I'm proud to say that our government has moved

quickly to put that plan in place.

[1535]

As I said,

we face some very, very tough challenges that were left for us, and one of those

challenges is health care. Despite escalating health spending in recent years,

despite an increase of more than $1 billion in the health budget since last

year, this lack of confidence is felt by patients and by doctors, nurses and

other health professionals in the system. The lack of confidence, I think, comes

from the knowledge that the pressure for health services is outstripping the

ability of our economy and British Columbia's taxpayers to fund those needs.

The growth

costs are not sustainable, and they threaten public health care in our province.

Our government is willing to face up to the real issues in British Columbia's

health care system and to address them strategically and realistically. We want

to make sure that British Columbians can count on the health services that are

most important to them and that we devote more of every health dollar we spend

on patient care.

The Health

Services minister has spoken to all of us in this House about the work that will

be done in government in the months ahead through the core services review to

examine every health program and service in government and to examine the

broader health care system. We want to ensure that government and the health

system are doing government right, to make sure we are providing the health

services that are the most important to British Columbians and to make sure we

are doing this in the most efficient, cost-effective ways.

The core

review that was announced is important to help us meet health care needs in the

short term and also to help us plan for the longer term. It will provide the

information base we need on which to build a sustainable health care system for

the future, a system that our patients can rely on. The review is critical to

the work I want to do as Minister of Health Planning.

We know

government has to do a much better job of planning for a health system that will

meet the needs of patients and caregivers and care providers. The saddest part

about coming to office was finding out that there really wasn't a lot of

planning done in the last ten years for health care. I think we knew that.

We knew

that from the Dialogue on Health Care . When we toured with the Premier

last fall, the most consistent message coming out of that was that there was no

planning for health care. No one has planned for health care human resources. No

one has planned for technology. No one has planned for capital facilities.

One of the

most poignant things that has happened is that the Premier, thinking forward,

divided the Ministry of Health into a Ministry of Health Services, one that

deals with day-to-day operations, and one that looks forward to the future, the

Ministry of Health Planning. That's why we created the new Ministry of Health

Planning. It was created to look forward for future planning, looking at the

long term.

Through

this ministry we will develop a ten-year strategy for health care in British

Columbia. That will go hand in hand with our government's strategy for economic

recovery. Governance and accountability are key components of our plan for

health care, as will be a long-overdue ten-year plan for health human resources,

a plan we hope will educate, support and create fulfilling career opportunities

for the increasing number of skilled health care professionals we need on the

front lines for patient care in every part of our province.

In all

these matters we will be guided by input from our health care providers, health

administrators and people all across British Columbia. Clearly, we do face

challenges. In particular we face a very serious fiscal challenge, but we're

taking on that challenge. We're taking it on head-on as part of our commitment

to usher in a new era of prosperity for all British Columbians. Our health

system needs dependable funding, and we are taking the economic and fiscal

action that is needed to create a stable and sustainable system of public health

care.

Penner: This is my first opportunity to formally address the Legislative

Assembly since the May 16, 2001, election. That being the case, I'd like to

extend my congratulations to you, the member for Kamloops, on your successful

election to your lofty position as Speaker of this Legislative Assembly. That is

an elected position, so it highlights the confidence that members of this body

have in your abilities. Going forward, I'm sure you will continue to earn that

support.

[1540]

It's a

great honour for me to have the opportunity to once again have a chance to serve

the people in the Upper Fraser Valley. I was first elected in 1996 and

represented the electoral district known as Chilliwack.

Of course

since that time we've had an Electoral Boundaries Commission struck, which

examined the population growth around the province. The conclusions of that

commission were that additional ridings were necessary in order to account for

population growth in certain regions of the province. The Fraser Valley was one

of those regions where a new riding was added, and as a result Chilliwack is now

represented by two MLAs. Chilliwack was split in two. There's Chilliwack-Sumas

to the western side of the community, and there's Chilliwack-Kent, which I now

represent. Chilliwack-Kent includes Cultus Lake, Columbia Valley, Chilliwack

River Valley, Ryder Lake, Promontory, Fairfield Island, Rosedale, Popkum, Bridal

Falls, Agassiz, Harrison and Seabird Island.

[ Page 195 ]

Some of that territory I represented previously, and some of it is new to me.

Before I go

any further, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome to the Legislative

Assembly Sylvia Pranger, the mayor of the district of Kent. I've had a chance to

work with the mayor in the past, and I look forward to continuing to do so now

that I'm officially her MLA. I can't say that she's my mayor, because I haven't

yet moved to Agassiz. But if I were to do so, I know that I would be very well

represented by her and her council.

This area

that I represent also includes a number of significant first nations bands

represented by the Stó:lo nation. It's certainly a commitment and a priority

for me to establish and maintain good relationships with the first nations

people that reside in Chilliwack-Kent.

Just to

recap a little bit about what happened on May 16, 2001, in the riding of

Chilliwack-Kent, I was overwhelmed by the show of public support by the people

in our area and received 74.88 percent of the popular vote. I know that sets the

bar pretty high for the next election, but it's a goal that I'm going to work

towards to maintain that level of trust and confidence that the people in my

part of the world have shown.

I'd also

like to acknowledge — I guess we called them opponents; I didn't really view

them as such — the people that also put their names forward on May 16 in the

electoral district of Chilliwack-Kent. Those people who sought elected office

and were willing to put their name on the line — put their name on the ballot,

put their reputation out for the public to consider —really deserve our

respect and our thanks. I believe that shows a fundamental commitment to the

democratic process, which sometimes is a thing that we take for granted. Quite

frankly, even those people who ran and didn't get elected show and deserve a lot

of respect. There are people in our society, even here in British Columbia, who

don't share those same core attitudes and beliefs that the way to resolve our

differences in a society is through the electoral process, peacefully,

democratically and giving people the opportunity to select the government that

they think best represents their interests. I'll have more to say about those

groups that are agitating in our province in a moment.

But first

let me touch on a topic that's near and dear to my heart. It's called the

Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. Just a few days ago me and a few other

members of this Legislative Assembly had an opportunity to participate in a

conference sponsored by the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. The acronym is

PNWER. I was joined by the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, the member for

Delta North, the member for North Coast and the member for East Kootenay in

representing the province at this conference, which was held in Whistler.

More than

850 delegates attended this conference, and many of those delegates — about

250 of them — were legislators from across the western part of the United

States and western Canada. This gave British Columbia a great opportunity to

communicate some key messages to our neighbours. First and foremost, we have to

acknowledge that British Columbia in the recent past, with the previous

government, wasn't always a reliable participant or partner in PNWER. Our

Premier in this government has a commitment to better relations and to engage in

constructive dialogue with our neighbours. I believe we have more things in

common than we have things that divide us when it comes to dealing with our

counterparts, whether it's Alberta, Yukon, Alaska, Washington State, Idaho,

Montana or Oregon. All of those jurisdictions belong in PNWER, and I think that

if we work together, we can accomplish far more than if we fight each other.

[1545]

I'd also

like to take a moment here to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There was considerable media coverage given to

the fact that a number of protesters decided that for whatever reason, they

didn't like the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, and they didn't think we

should be having a meeting to discuss things that we have in common.

There were

some suggestions ahead of time that things could get ugly. Certainly, we've seen

very violent and nasty protests in other parts of the world. Just recently in

Genoa, Italy, a young demonstrator was killed. In other demonstrations, in

Seattle during the WTO and even here in Vancouver during the APEC summit in

1997, things got decidedly out of hand.

I'm pleased

to report that the situation was very much under control at Whistler, and that's

due in large measure to the good work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. All

too often we forget their hard work, and I think that's something we should

acknowledge.

While we

were there, we had a chance to meet with Staff Sgt. Hugh Stewart, who was in

charge of the security operations at Whistler. He is a person who previously had

come under criticism by the media and others for the police response at APEC.

I'm really proud that the RCMP have stood by their man, supported him and let

him be in charge again of the security detail here at Whistler, because things

went very, very well.

In fact,

his presence and the good work of the RCMP were not unnoticed by members of the

media. Last week — I believe it was on July 27 —Michael Smyth, a political

pundit with the Province newspaper, had this to say: "As far as I'm

concerned, Stewart and his people do a damn difficult job and do it well."

I'd like to

thank not just the RCMP but members of the media for acknowledging that these

men and women who make up the RCMP are really doing our job for us as citizens

of British Columbia and of Canada, to allow us to engage in democratic dialogue,

open debate and free speech. Again, thanks to those members for doing that.

I can also

report to the Legislative Assembly that there was a tremendous response to the

speech given by the Premier at this conference. His message about the tax cuts

— at that time all he was reporting back on

[ Page 196 ]

were the personal income tax reductions — and his explanation of the

government's general philosophy about encouraging private sector growth and

making British Columbia a leader in this region were very warmly received by the

delegates.

I think the

other members of this assembly who were present will support me when I say that

throughout the conference, in the days that followed, other members attending

from the United States and from the rest of Canada told us repeatedly how

impressed they were by the Premier's remarks and his general attitude about

making British Columbia a leader again. It was a very positive message, and it

was very warmly received.

In fact, I

think I saw a look of concern on some of the Alberta legislators who were

present, because for far too long Alberta has had the field essentially open to

itself, without much competition from British Columbia in attracting jobs and

investment. Those days are over. British Columbia is back. We're going to be

competitive again. I think the people from Alberta know it, and they heard that

in the Premier's speech last Thursday.

I'd also

like to report on a few of the topics that were discussed. Energy was by far the

most hotly contested topic in terms of getting a seat. In fact, in some of the

sessions you were not able to get a seat or even stand in the room; the room was

simply filled to capacity. That, I think, reflects the concern across the

western part of North America in the past few months about electricity prices,

natural gas prices and what's been happening with energy markets in general.

We had some

excellent presentations from key industry and government leaders on the topic.

One thing I learned that I think will be of interest to people here is that

there's 100,000 megawatts of new electricity generation that is planned or under

construction in the western part of North America. That's a huge amount of

electricity. To put that in perspective, all of B.C. Hydro's generating capacity

is just something in the order of 10,000 megawatts. So more than ten times B.C.

Hydro's total capacity is now either planned or under construction in North

America, and that will work to significantly alleviate the pressure on

electricity prices in the medium to long term.

[1550]

However, I

also heard a message, over and over again, that it doesn't make too much sense

— or any sense at all, frankly — to put all of our electricity eggs in the

natural gas basket. According to analysts who spoke at the conference, something

like 95 percent of this 100,000 megawatts of new capacity is planned to be

fuelled by natural gas, and some of the commentators at the conference expressed

concern about what could happen to electricity prices if there is again a

constriction in the supply of natural gas. Obviously, prices could go up quite

dramatically for people in the United States and those parts of Canada that rely

heavily on natural gas generation to provide electricity.

On the

positive side, we heard great things about what's being done in the area of wind

generation. For some of us here in British Columbia, when we hear that

mentioned, we think: well, that's got to be a pretty experimental form of energy

production. In fact, it's now in large-scale use around the world. Denmark, for

example, derives 15 percent of its total electricity generation from wind power.

Spain and Germany are also pursuing wind generation heavily to meet their future

needs, and Texas, California and Washington State are moving boldly to pursue

wind generation.

It's not

simply experimental; it's well past that. Wind is now providing, in some states,

up to 7 percent of their total needs for electricity. Unfortunately, British

Columbia did very little under the previous government, if anything, to pursue

wind generation. So today, as I stand here, I have to report that we have no

completed wind-generating capacity to create electricity in British Columbia.

B.C. Hydro

recently announced that they are calling for proposals to build a 10 megawatt

demonstration project, while at the same time Bonneville Power Administration,

B.C. Hydro's counterpart south of the border, has called for firm proposals for

1,000 megawatts of wind-generating capacity to create electricity. They don't

consider it a demonstration project at all in the United States. We have some

work to do to catch up, and I'm confident that under a new government we will

see a change in attitude and we'll take advantage of some of this new

technology.

Other

things discussed on the energy front included net metering. Again, just a few

years ago this was a topic that was near and dear to the hearts of hard-core

environmentalists but didn't seem to really be a thing that was in the realm of

the plausible. Well, I'm here to report that in the state of Montana, a bill has

been passed that makes net metering mandatory if an individual customer is

willing to pay the price to hook up and create their own source of electricity

on their own property. How is that being done? Well, there has become a

tremendous market for the installation and operation of solar cell technology.

Solar voltaic cell technology has come a long way. You can get much more energy

now from a given square footage than you could even just five years ago, at much

lower cost. I think the total cost now of generating electricity through solar

voltaic cells has dropped something like 70 percent in just ten years.

People in

Montana have the opportunity, if they wish, to spend their own money to set up

solar voltaic cells on their property, either a freestanding unit or having it

built onto the roof of their house or made a contiguous part of their new

construction, and have that electricity serve not just their own needs. In the

event that they are able to generate more electricity than they actually

consume, they can sell that back to the utility through the grid. That's what

net metering is all about.

The utility

is now required by state law in Montana to install a different meter that allows

the electricity to either flow into the household if the person needs the

electricity or, if they are generating more than they need, flow back into the

grid. At the end of the month, that consumer or resident may, instead of getting

a bill,

[ Page 197 ]

get a cheque from the utility for the extra electricity produced. This is

obviously an innovative way to meet some of the challenges of that extra demand

for electricity that all of North America is experiencing, and I believe that

this government will consider favourably those types of suggestions.

Washington

State too, I am told, has passed a bill requiring utilities to permit net

metering just in this recent session of their Legislature, and so we'll see

continued development of the technologies that make that type of electricity

production plausible.

[1555]

We heard

about forestry. There were some forestry sessions that took place, good

discussions about different practices in the different member jurisdictions.

Frankly, being there at Whistler again gave us a huge opportunity to put out our

message and explain to our American cousins that in fact, while we may do

forestry differently in British Columbia, it doesn't mean that our forestry

industry is subsidized by taxpayers. Of course, I'm speaking to the softwood

lumber issue and the threat of countervailing duties.

I think we

made some progress in getting our message across to our American cousins.

There's obviously more work to be done. I'm sure the very capable Minister of

Forests will continue to do that work for us. But all of us in this assembly

and, I think, everybody in British Columbia has some obligation, when they have

a chance to meet with people from the United States, to explain to them that

this industry is not being unfairly subsidized and that what they're hearing

about in the United States is really a form of protectionism from some of their

own forestry groups that don't want the competition.

Now, I

hasten to acknowledge that there are competing groups in the United States that

are saying that they want open access to Canadian lumber. Those groups, of

course, are on the consumer side. That's a positive development and a difference

over how things used to be a few years ago. Again, we're making progress, and I

think that with this new government's commitment to firmly standing up for

B.C.'s interests, we will see our message getting across to people in the United

States in a way that simply hasn't happened in the past.

We also had

a chance to talk to some elected people from California about B.C. Hydro and

about the $400 million that is owed to our Crown utility. I had an interesting

discussion at a reception held Friday night by, I think, Canada's consul general

in Seattle, Roger Simmons. These California state Senators took great pride in

saying that they were free-enterprisers. One person in particular said that he

was the only individual in their state Legislature that still had a payroll to

meet, because he runs a series of restaurants.

Then we got

into the topic of B.C. Hydro and the prices that were charged for electricity.

This Senator maintained that B.C. Hydro was guilty of receiving excessive

profits. I told this gentleman, who prides himself on being a free-enterpriser,

that I was surprised to hear him use that term, because that's usually a term

used by the socialist Left. He said: "No, your utility would still end up

making some profit under our offer, so you should be happy, even though it's

less than the profit that you had anticipated." Well, to him, I likened it

to going into his restaurant in Sacramento. I asked him: "How would you

feel if I sat down at your table, looked at your menu, ordered an item that was

listed for $20 but then left you $15 on my way out the door?"

Hon. M.

de Jong: Like you've never done that before.

Penner: The member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman should maybe consider

himself in those remarks. However, I digress.

This

California state Senator said: "The comparison you're making is completely

incorrect and is not relevant." But in my view, it is completely relevant.

By the time we got through with our discussion, there were a number of

California state Senators gathered around hearing what was turning into

something of a heated conversation — "frank discussion" might be a

better choice of words on my part.

That is the

kind of thing that we need to do as a province. We need to explain our position.

The previous government, for so many years, would stamp its feet and pull out

its hair here in Victoria, getting frustrated at things that were happening

outside of our borders. They were speaking to the converted for the most part,

rather than taking our message abroad.

That's why

I think it is so important that we constructively engage our neighbours so that

they know what our concerns are, rather than just sitting back at home and

complaining when they make a decision that we don't like. We can't very well

expect them to do things that are in our interests if we haven't explained to

them our way of thinking, our way of doing things and the reasons for doing

things differently than themselves.

I'll leave

PNWER alone for now and move off that topic. We heard earlier today some very

good news, and it's very encouraging. In the Speech from the Throne we heard a

commitment from the government that we would continue to fight the Sumas 2 power

plant proposal that threatens air quality and water quality in the Fraser

Valley.

I hardly

need remind anyone that it was the NDP government that refused to intervene and

missed that deadline, which passed about 15 months ago, for official intervener

status in Washington State. At the time, their members said: "It's

pointless. You can't tell Washington State what to do. They're not going to

listen to us. Those bad old Americans, they're just…. It's not worth our

breath." Well, how wrong could they be?

[1600]

A new

government, a new way of doing things. We found out today that British

Columbia's request for intervener status has been granted. We will be a full

partner at the table. We'll have a chance to cross-examine SE2. We'll get a

chance to really make a difference for the people that we are elected to

represent. For that, I say thank you to the Washington

[ Page 198 ]

State legislators and to the people of the EFSEC, the Energy Facility Site

Evaluation Council in Washington State, for allowing British Columbia to

intervene and be a part of this decision-making process.

Lastly,

before I conclude I'd like to just comment on a few things that were announced

by the Minister of Finance in his Economic and Fiscal Update this past

Monday. We've already heard the good things about the tax cuts and what that

should do to spur our economy. Goodness knows, it needs it. But I'd like to just

comment about a few things that perhaps need a bit more attention.

I am very

pleased with specific tax measures that were announced to fight air pollution.

Rather than spending millions of dollars on a so-called green secretariat that

consisted, I think, mostly of staff in Victoria — that was the previous

government's way of doing things — our government has announced specific

measures to encourage people to change their behaviour, using financial

incentives. Let's face it. That has the biggest influence on most of our

decisions. If you feel it in your pocketbook, you're likely to pay attention.

Specifically,

the government has announced rebates of up to $1,000 for people who purchase or

lease alternative fuel vehicles. This will encourage people even more so to seek

out those kinds of cars that cause less environmental impacts in the province of

British Columbia. I think that in the days and years to come, we'll see

significant benefits from that decision. We've also offered up to $10,000

rebates, or tax credits, for alternative fuel buses — again, providing a

concrete economic incentive for people to change their behaviour and make

different decisions.

Finally,

the provincial government has eliminated all provincial taxes on new,

cleaner-burning diesel fuel. This is obviously an attempt to address the concern

that existing diesel fuel is pretty dirty. It's dirtier than conventional

gasoline. We know that there are quite a number of vehicles out there that are

popular — I'm thinking of the Volkswagen Jetta, for example — that utilize a

diesel-powered engine. Well, with this tax measure we're encouraging people to

switch to a new diesel fuel called PuriNOx, which dramatically reduces the

amount of emissions that are generated by burning diesel. That's something

that's positive. It's something that's concrete, something you can take to the

bank. Rather than just talking about doing something for the environment, this

government is actually doing something for the environment.

Mr.

Speaker, I said that was the last thing I was going to talk about, and I take

that back. I do want to acknowledge two more things that I think are important

that this government has done. We said for many years in opposition that the

B.C. Legislature would operate much better if we had a fixed legislative

calendar so that people could determine their own

schedule and so that the

public would know when we were here doing their work on their behalf and keep us

more accountable. For the last ten years the NDP government simply refused to

make that basic change. They had no good reason other than that it suited the

political purpose of the Premier of the day to keep members of this House

guessing about when they had to be here to do the public's business.

That gave

the NDP government a political advantage, a tactical advantage, that actually

served to hurt the interests of their own members — their private members,

their non–cabinet members. Frankly, it was a disgrace. I'm pleased that we

kept that commitment. We have set a fixed legislative calendar for the future,

and we're showing that this Legislature will be one of the most progressive

legislatures in all of Canada.

One other

thing that you frequently heard us talk about here was the need for

balanced-budget legislation that would impose real, meaningful penalties on

ministers and the government if they failed to live within their set budget

targets. On Monday the Minister of Finance tabled just such a bill, called the

Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. That act requires the

government to balance its books by 2004-05 and imposes tough penalties on

ministers of the Crown and the Premier if they fail to meet their budget

targets. That is another commitment made and a commitment kept by this

government.

[1605]

conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish you well, and I wish all members of this House

well, as we work during this session to continue to implement the commitments

that our party made to the people of British Columbia. I know we all take our

promises seriously, and we're going to work very diligently to keep each and

every one of those promises for the benefit of the people that we represent.

Hon. G.

Hogg: Mr. Speaker, let me start by adding my congratulations to the myriad

of congratulations which you have received to date on assuming the position that

you are now in. I'm sure that under your guidance, under your supervision, we

will see one of the most progressive, positive and enlightened legislatures in

the history of this province.

I am

honoured to be here for a second term representing the people of Surrey–White

Rock. This represents, if I include my years in municipal government, my

twenty-fifth year in elected office: ten as a councillor in White Rock, ten as

the mayor and now entering into the fifth year here. I'm honoured to have the

opportunity to again represent the people of Surrey–White Rock, and they have

bestowed upon me a wonderful opportunity and honour to represent them here.

As I've

heard many of our new members speaking over the past week and listening to their

energy and excitement about being involved in this new era that we're presenting

for British Columbia, I know that on each of my opportunities to go back to my

community, I hear the people of the community coming up to me and expressing

their excitement that they're energized and delighted with the opportunities and

the actions this government is taking.

We're

already seeing changes in our community. We're seeing changes on the Marine

Drive waterfront

[ Page 199 ]

in our community. We have so many wonderful restaurants, and those

restaurants are feeling a sense of optimism, a sort of coming alive with the

vibrant excitement of the new economy and the psyche of a public which seems

committed to and interested in change and new things. We're seeing that in Ocean

Park, an arts community. The sale of arts is moving and starting to get moving.

The Crescent Beach area, where we're seeing so many of our people who like to be

involved in vacation and restaurant and hospitality, is coming alive as well.

That old,

famous sage, Author Unknown, once said that a vision with no plan makes a

dreamer, but a plan with no vision makes a plotter. But if you can combine a

vision and a plan, you have a conqueror. Well, we have a vision, and we have a

plan. That vision started to be laid out way back when we started to talk about

our initial values as a party, our values as British Columbians. We interpreted

those values, and we placed those into a platform which we presented to the

people of British Columbia. We presented that through the course of an election.

We interpreted that in a throne speech, and now we're starting to "operationalize"

that.

There has

been a causal relationship that has existed along that full continuum. It's not

just little pieces that have been pulled out of somewhere; it's actually been

turned through those roles. It's commitments that have been made and commitments

that are being kept.

It reminded

me of one of my favourite cartoons, which was Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown was

sitting in his back yard with his bow and arrow. He'd take out his bow and

arrow, and he'd shoot it into the fence and then run and up and draw a target

around the arrow as it stuck in the fence, and he did it over and over again.

Then Lucy came in and said: "Charlie, that's no way to be shooting, no way to be taking targets and shooting at things."

Charlie Brown said: "Well, why not? This way I never miss. I always get a

bull's-eye." Well, it seems that some of the planning in the past ten years

in this province hasn't had that goal, hasn't had that focus, hasn't had that

direction that they wanted to move towards. They seemed to be coming to an

outcome and trying to draw a bull's-eye around it.

Though our

throne speech we've started to lay out what those targets are, what those

bull's-eyes are. We've looked at having some accountability around trying to

achieve them. By clearly articulating where we want to go and putting in place a

plan to get us there, we're able to much more effectively and reasonably provide

for and be understood by the people of this province.

Daniel

Boone was once asked whether or not he'd ever been lost in his many forays into

the wilderness. He said: "No, I've never been lost, but there were, I

think, three or four days when I didn't know where I was." Well, I don't

think the people of this province have ever been lost either, but there might

have been ten years where they weren't exactly sure where they were.

[1610]

Well, I

maybe need another story then. Another one of my favourite stories, which I

think relates to some of the things that have been happening in this province,

comes from James Michener in his novel Hawaii . Michener had a mother and

a daughter sitting in their rocking chairs on the lanai looking out over the

sunsets of Hawaii. They were rocking away in silence, and after a few moments

the mother stopped her rocking chair and turned to her daughter and said:

"You know, dear, you really should listen to your father. He has 40 years'

worth of living experience." The daughter kept rocking for a few moments

and then stopped and turned to her mother and said: "You know, mom, what I

think dad really has is one year's worth of experience lived over 40

times."

We have to

learn from experience, and I think that the things we've learned as we've

watched the evolution of this province have now come to fruition as they started

to be reflected in the throne speech and in the budget that we've tied into that

and tied together. We're seeing an opportunity for a future that has optimism,

that has hope and that is a future which the people of this province so dearly

want.

We've had a

decade which has been very challenging for the people of this province. Today we

have the slowest-growing economy, and we have some of the most expensive

programs. We have to address that, and I think the plan that we've started to

lay out started to do that.

We know, in

the Ministry of Children and Family Development, that economic times have to be

positive for us to do all the things that we need for the people who are most in

need. We know that when difficult economic times are in existence, that's when

the work of the social service ministries is most needed. British Columbia's

public service, our social services, depend upon a healthy economy, and healthy

economies depend upon competitive tax systems and on excellent fiscal

management.

I'm

delighted that we are already taking steps to restore that hope and that

prosperity in British Columbia so it can be reflected in the services that we

provide. The tax cuts this government announced on June 6 and again on July 30

will work to stimulate the economy for businesses and, most importantly, for

individuals and families and for the services they require. I am confident that

we will have British Columbia as an economic leader again in Canada.

This

government is committed to ensuring that we have better services so that every

child has the opportunity and the support they need to grow up healthy. In the

Ministry of Children and Family Development, that means we will have to work

hard to provide better services. We have to ensure that we're finding the most

efficient and effective ways of doing that.

Let me

provide a bit of a context for the ministry. Each day the ministry receives

reports of some 100 allegations of abuse or neglect. That's 100 reports a day,

[ Page 200 ]

365 days a year in this province. That is something in the neighbourhood of

34,000 reports a year. Those result in some 22,500 investigations being carried

out and somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4,000 children a year being taken from

their homes to ensure their safety. That's 11 a day. Those are very, very high

numbers.

When we

look at the work that our social workers have to do — going to someone's door

to investigate a report — that is amongst the most difficult tasks that any

government can ask of any of their civil servants, of any of their employees.

Certainly, the social workers that carry out that task on behalf of all the

people of this province do a yeoman's job in very difficult situations where

nothing is concrete, everything is intangible, and the decisions they have to

make are so terribly difficult. The judgments they make on behalf of the people

of this province to ensure that our children are as safe as they can possibly be

are amongst the most difficult decisions that ever have to be made.

[1615]

Every day

in British Columbia children are also returned to their families with supports

that may include homemakers, child and youth care workers and parenting

programs. The ministry has some 10,400 children in its legal care. These are

children who are medically fragile and children who have special needs. Overall,

the ministry serves over 400,000 people every year. That's one in 10,000

citizens in this province. In fact, the ministry provides twice as many bed-days

a year as all of the acute care hospitals in the province combined. It has an

enormous responsibility to deal and to work with those.

There are

many worthy social objectives that this government pursues and will continue to

pursue. Those include better services for children, families and first nations.

One of the values that we laid out when we developed our New Era document

is reflected again and again in the throne speech and the budget and the work of

the people of this House. It's an open and accountable government and

responsible, accountable management of British Columbia's resources and tax

dollars. These are goals which it's obvious that the people of this province

share with this government. These goals transcend the barriers that have too

often divided us from one another along ideological lines.

Parents of

young children make choices every day. Parents make choices about their

children's care, their well-being, their health and their relationships. They

have to make choices about their children's future. Every child is different,

and every parent needs a range of choices in terms of responding to those

differences.

We know

that the quality of care that children receive in their early years, the first

three years, means everything. That is now undisputed in terms of the research

and work that has been done. We know so much now about how their brains develop

in the early years. We know that it means so much in terms of how they function

in school, how they grow up and how they become contributing members of our

society. We are committed to supporting families so that they have the

opportunity to raise the healthy, successful children they want. This commitment

is reflected in the budget that has come forward and certainly in the principles

of the throne speech.

That is an

investment in our future that will support families, particularly with the 25

percent cut in provincial income tax. In January 2002 British Columbia will

have the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada for the bottom two brackets.

That will be a big support and bonus to the families of this province.

Bringing

back economic prosperity to the province will help families provide a safe and

nurturing environment for their children. We have increased the budget for the

Minister of Children and Family Development by approximately 14 percent. That

increase means that the vital work for the ministry can continue and that we can

support the initiatives which we have laid out, which we have talked about and

which we will continue.

It means

that we can invest in several priority areas, as outlined in the Premier's

letter to me as the minister responsible and to the Minister of State for Early

Childhood Development. Those include examining the opportunities for greater

local delivery of children and family services; developing a plan for aboriginal

children receiving ministry services in cooperation with the Ministry of

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services; developing a plan to lead an

increase in family support services; reviewing the current legal status of

children with autism and making positive, progressive recommendations;

developing a framework for attracting more foster parents and supporting today's

foster parents; and providing greater support for early childhood development

programs.

It means

that this year our ministry will move forward on those initiatives to provide

better services to children and families and to place increased emphasis on

early childhood development programs for families with special needs children.

It means providing greater support for child and youth mental health and youth

justice programs and better services to aboriginal children, and we will support

aboriginal people in looking after their own children and their own families. It

means support for communities to provide services for children and families in

ways that best reflect those individual communities' nuances, needs and

strengths, and better support for adults with developmental disabilities who

live independently in our communities. It means effective support for children

in care, and it means advancing the treatment of autism.

[1620]

These are

solid commitments that are reflected in the throne speech and are given meaning

and operational life through the budget. These are solid commitments for a new

era of hope and prosperity to provide children and families with the support

they need to lead healthy, happy lives. These are commitments that underline the

fact that we can and must always strive to do better on behalf of the children

and families of British Columbia.

[ Page 201 ]

It's time

that we put real accountability into the system and devote resources to the job

needed to put the interests of children first. This government, through its

throne speech and through its budget, is doing just that.

Recently an

executive realignment took place in the Ministry of Children and